https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2001313655963390440
View attachment 8297848
I will say it again. I will shout it from the rooftops.
A vote for a Democrat, a vote for any leftist, is literally a vote for rape to increase.
It's time for everyone's favorite quiz show:
How much rape is too much rape?
According to this post, England has a rape per 100k (per annum, presumably) of 117.2.
This means that, on average, assuming negligible repetition of targets (criminologists be quiet, it's napkin math) about 0.1172% of the population is raped each year. But since rape is overwhelmingly committed against women, it's more like 0.2344% of all women in England each year.
It can be hard to reason about statistics like this, so let's look at a basic indication of how widespread rape is: "do you know someone in your family who has been raped?" For our purposes we will here define "family" as grandparents, uncles and aunts (including their spouses), cousins, parents, and siblings.
Suppose that family size followed the requirement to hit replacement rate: two children per woman (I know it's not exactly that, talk to the napkin) and that the distribution perfectly followed the typical ratio of 1 boy per girl. Then you have two grandmothers, one mother, one aunt on your mother's side, two aunts on your father's side, 3 female cousins, and (supposing you are male for the sake of argument) a sister. This makes a total of 10 female relatives.
In 10 years, supposing that there aren't many duplicate targets of rape, we would expect approximately 2.344% of all women in England to have been raped. Assuming fresh targets each time and otherwise random target selection, the probability that none of them were any of your 10 female relatives is (1 - 0.02344)^10, or 0.788 - only a 22% chance that a woman in your family was raped in those 10 years.
What about in 20 years? By the same assumptions, we would expect that approximately 4.688% of all women in England have been raped at that point. The probability that none of them were your 10 female relatives is (1 - 0.0468
^10, or 0.618. Now you're up to around a 40% chance that a woman in your family was raped in those 20 years.
The voting age in the UK is, to my understanding, 18, and the life expectancy is around 80. So the average person has 62 years of voting in them, meaning the average voter today would be expected to live 31 years (yeah the age distribution probably isn't uniform, don't care).
In 31 years, the probability that one of those 10 women in your family has been raped reaches 53%.
But let's cut to the chase, good voters should be caring about their children's future, not their own. So what about that 80 years of life?
The probability that a 2025 Englishman's newborn son will live to see one of his relatives raped reaches 87.5%.
Of course, assumptions about target reuse or lack thereof break down further the more time progresses and the raped percentage of the population increases, and by 80 years out almost 19% of the female population of the UK has been raped, so it's likely a bit lower in reality. There's also the issue that the raped population can decrease by victims dying off, and the unraped population can increase by unraped babies being born. I haven't addressed that at all. And the fertility rate in the UK is probably well below replacement. There are a million ways this could be shown to be lacking in rigor. If someone with a statistics background wants to give it an earnest go, please do.
I think this suffices, though, to show that if that rate is accurate, there are enough rapes to go around for almost everyone to be affected within their lifetime. At that point, I hardly care what's going on with Poland, Poland's rate could be ten times the UK's and the UK's would still be too high.
